United States v. Leander Jones , 675 F. App'x 308 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4556
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LEANDER DEWEY JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:16-cr-00019-F-1)
Submitted: January 26, 2017 Decided: February 1, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leander Dewey Jones pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to manufacturing child pornography and was sentenced
to 360 months’ imprisonment. Jones’ counsel now appeals the
substantive reasonableness of Jones’ sentence in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The Government has
moved to dismiss Jones’ appeal based upon a waiver of appellate
rights in his plea agreement.
We conclude that the appeal waiver contained in Jones’ plea
agreement is valid, as he entered it knowingly and
intelligently. See United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
(4th Cir. 2010). Moreover, Jones’ appeal of the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence is barred by his waiver of
appellate rights. Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss
to the extent that it seeks dismissal of Jones’ substantive
reasonableness claim.
Furthermore, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed
the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal that are outside of the scope of the appeal
waiver. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment as to
any issue not precluded by the plea waiver.
This court requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Jones requests that a petition be filed,
2
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Jones. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3